Docs Blame U.S. Weapons for Fallujah Birth Defects

By: Alex Sundby
Topics: Iraq

(CBS)

Doctors and parents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are blaming a sharp increase in the number of birth defects on the highly sophisticated weapons U.S. troops have used in the city during the war.

The BBC reported Thursday the staggering statistic from doctors in the city that the number of heart defects found in newborn babies is 13 times the number of similar birth defects in Europe.

U.S. troops carried out a major offensive in the city in 2004. Military spokesman Michael Kilpatrick told the news organization it takes public health concerns "very seriously."

"No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues," Kilpatrick told the BBC. "Unexploded ordinance, including improvised explosive devices, are a recognized hazard."

British-based Iraqi researcher Malik Hamdan told the news organization that one doctor compared the number of birth defects from before 2003 to today. Before the war began, she saw about one case every two months. Now she sees cases every day.

Her research shows that as of January, the rate of congenital heart defects was 95 per 1,000 births or 13 times Europe's rate.

"I've seen footage of babies born with an eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead," she told the BBC.

Alex Sundby
Alex Sundby is an associate news editor for CBSNews.com

26 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 26 Comments

by MarDivPhoto March 12, 2010 8:35 AM EST

First, DU is used in a limited number of projectiles, essentially as an anti-tank weapon by aircraft with 25/30mm cannon or tank cannon. No hostile tanks in Fallujah, so no use of DU ammo. Air support was primarily rockets and bombs. No weapons carried by grunts use DU ammo. So there could not be any DU residue in Fallujah, beyond normal backgroud levels in parts per trillion. And if there were, it'd be easy to detect and confirm.
Secondly, the reason uranium has a 4 BILLION year half-life is because its emission of radiation is so low. Most really nasty radioactives have a comparatively short life, which makes sense, the more energy you put out, the less time you have to emit.
Thirdly, the people who mine uranium ore, which is several times more radioactive than DU is, have only been known to have a higher incidence of lung cancer, from inhaling the particles. No birth defects. Low energy beta particles from uranium don't penetrate very far, and aren't going to rearrange DNA.
Oh, and no, US tanks aren't lined with DU, that would make the tank heavier and also more dangerous, since an impact on the outer surface would make the DU spall out and kill the crew. DU shielding is used in some atomic reactors as a barrier to high energy radiation.
Lastly, a higher incidence of birth defects has often been noted in any area where intense combat has taken place.
If DU were as dangerous as people like to believe, then the incidence of cancer and birth defects among workers who process it and those who handle it would have long ago become dramatically obvious. That is not the case.
People seem to like to find anything the US does as bad. While far from perfect (who is?), this country tries harder than any other to avoid doing long term damage to anyone.

Reply to this comment


by MDCCLXXVI March 15, 2010 4:13 PM EDT: "then the incidence of cancer and birth defects among workers"

Are there many pregnant women chillin out in this radioactive uranium mine for say... 9 months of pregnancy? Sounds pretty cruel, I suggest sanctions.


by britdeb March 6, 2010 11:21 AM EST: Its's not just G W Bush unfortunately, DU was used in the Gulf War too see this website: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html and please force yourselves to look at the pictures at the bottom of the page! When we hear "birth defects" we think of mild defects - these are HORRENDOUS! The other point to mention is that our troops sat in tanks lined with DU (which makes the tank stronger) and were exposed to this in Southern Iraq going through the bodies etc., so I'm sure we haven't heard about it yet but they must be experiencing the same (albiet on a lesser scale) horrors with their newborns. As well as the cancer rates which they themselves will experience later in life. Last but not least DU has a half life of 4.5 BILLION years, it's in their water and soil, plantlife, animals etc and we will probably not do clean-up. Ever heard of nuclear winter....; Reply to this comment


by edgemaster--2008 March 5, 2010 11:12 AM EST: Using so called depleted uranium IS nuclear / chemical warfare. Its use should be declared a crime against the planet as well as a crime against humanity.; Reply to this comment

by taylorsucram March 4, 2010 8:59 PM EST

We keep doing this over and over again. First we gave infected blankets to the Native Americans, then we used Agent Orange in Vietnam and ended up poisoning the land and the people not to mention the mutagenic qualities we infused into our own soldiers. Now with the use of depleted uranium (come on there's no such thing, the half life of uranium is ridiculous)we are creating Mutants and entire families that will end up hating us forever.

Reply to this comment


by Dgunner March 5, 2010 9:52 AM EST: AGENT ORANGE WAS NOT A WEAPON OF OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSE ACCORDING TO PENTAGON.THE SMALLPOX INFESTATION WAS REAL PUT ON THE NATIVE AMERICANS.THESE PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO BREED ANYWAY THEY CAN'T PROTECT THIER SH--@ HOUSE MUCH LESS THIER BABIES.


by PVperson2 March 4, 2010 8:04 PM EST: Well what to hell, we didn't care how many women and children we killed in the middle east, why should we care about the deformities we created?; Reply to this comment

by wyodutch March 4, 2010 7:14 PM EST

God is on our side.
.
Jesus hates the Iraqi people... or else he would have given them depleted uranium weapons to use against us Americans.

Reply to this comment


by PVperson2 March 4, 2010 8:00 PM EST: If there is a God, I wonder who he will look favorably on, the victims of our aggression or us aggressors?


by boatdocster March 4, 2010 10:00 PM EST: I doubt you find the OK anywhere in the Bible or from Jesus to use toxic weapons on innoncent people from a country that neither attacked or threatened us.

Frankly, this scenario is much more akin to the USA being one of the "four horsemen" spreading death and destruction across the globe.

Jesus never hated the Iraqi nation, but George W. Bush and Dickless Cheney sure hated Saddam - he would not turn over his countries oil rights to Dickless and his cronies; Hence the Iraq war.

In a twist of irony, perhaps Satan will appoint Saddam Hussein as jury foreman when Dickless shows up on Hell's doorstep for his war crimes. Now that would be poetic justice!


by lemonskinkus March 4, 2010 6:17 PM EST: Support the lies of the Bush war. I refuse to lower myself to such a position, it is too close where sh.it ends up at.; Reply to this comment


by akinos2009 March 4, 2010 6:09 PM EST: In the first Iraq war,( Bush 1 ), soldiers claimed that their chronic illnesses were caused by concentrated doses of chemical poisons in the air they breathed. Denied by the U.S. Government. Now we have more of the same. Denied by the " independent " blog writers in this case.
For every 100 accusations against them, the U.S. Government has 100 denials. Make that 99, there may be an occasional silence like this may turn out to be.; Reply to this comment


by akinos2009 March 4, 2010 6:06 PM EST: In the first Iraq war,( Bush 1 ), soldiers claimed that their chronic illnesses were caused by concentrated doses of chemical poisons in the air they breathed. Denied by the U.S. Government. Now we have more of the same. Denied by the " independent " blog writer in this case.
For every 100 accusations against them, the U.S. Government has 100 denials. Make that 99, there may be an occasional silence like this may turn out to be.; Reply to this comment

by Empire-George- March 4, 2010 5:36 PM EST

by stevebrt March 4, 2010 5:13 PM EST

the insurgents were not the ones using depleted uranium in their weapons
____________

as you probably know, typically Depleted Uranium (DU) is used for penetrating armor, such as from the 30mm cannon of an Apache, or as a kinetic energy penetrator used in ant-tank or anti-armor....now the majority of the fighting in Fallujah was not of this nature....I doubt the remaining rounds fired (Apache) would be sufficient to creat 13 times the number of birth defects....doesn't make sense in my opinion

Reply to this comment


by boatdocster March 4, 2010 10:15 PM EST: There is no threshold dose for radiation induced mutations, unlike radiation exposure symptoms. 100 - 200 hundred rem/rad (0.5 - 1 Sv), stomach symptoms; 2000-3000 (10 - 50 Sv), neurological symptoms and perhaps 100% likelihood of death.

Longer term exposure to radiation, at doses less than that which produces serious radiation sickness, can induce cancer as cell-cycle genes are mutated. If a cancer is radiation-induced, then the disease, the speed at which the condition advances, the prognosis, the degree of pain, and every other feature of the disease are not functions of the radiation dose to which the sufferer is exposed.

Fetal stem cells are very sensitive to radiation exposure, and low level but constant exposure to uranium dust via the exploded shells place the pregnant mothers at extreme risk. Alpha emitters are highly toxic when inhaled yet pose risk when placed on exterior skin.


by MichelDumont1 March 6, 2010 9:20 AM EST: Buildings in Fallujah were destroyed using "bunker buster" DU bombs. The DU core enables the bomb to go through many floors before exploding.